• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Sykes: Yeti is a hybrid bear

MikeG

Now. Do it now.
MikeG
Joined
Sep 22, 2012
Messages
24,804
Location
UK
Oxford Professor of Human Genetics, Brian Sykes, has analysed purported Yeti hair from either end of the Himalayas and reported a 100% match with an ancient polar bear jawbone from Norway. This means that an unknown species or sub-species of bear is still wandering around in the Himalayas, which is incredibly exciting. It isn't any of the 3 known species of bear in the region.

Telegraph

Express

Independent

Professor Sykes believes that the most likely explanation is that the animals are hybrids - crosses between polar bears and brown bears. The species are closely related and are known to interbreed where their territories overlap.

The professor said: "This is an exciting and completely unexpected result that gave us all a surprise. There's more work to be done on interpreting the results. I don't think it means there are ancient polar bears wandering around the Himalayas.

"But we can speculate on what the possible explanation might be. It could mean there is a sub species of brown bear in the High Himalayas descended from the bear that was the ancestor of the polar bear. Or it could mean there has been more recent hybridisation between the brown bear and the descendent of the ancient polar bear."
Click to expand...

Remember the previous "yeti" hair which Sykes tested? This went from 'unknown' to 'bear'.

Mike
 
Last edited:
That may be so, but the great thing is that it seems to be an un-catalogued species of bear. Sod the yeti legend, we may have evidence here of a brand-new-to-science big mammal, which is brilliant news if confirmed.
 
MikeG said:
That may be so, but the great thing is that it seems to be an un-catalogued species of bear. Sod the yeti legend, we may have evidence here of a brand-new-to-science big mammal, which is brilliant news if confirmed.
Click to expand...

It's all very interesting. I know that there are modern polar/brown bear hybrids and if I recall correctly, some claim the polar bear's origins back to brown bears in Scotland; others consider them unique and separate, a debate which I find infinitely more engaging than any concerning bigfoot.
 
We're not talking modern polar bears and brown bears hybridising, if the papers have it correct. This is an old hybrid. But where's your excitement? Even if this is a mundane hybrid of two common species, it is uncatalogued, and one of the species is not known in the Himalayas, or even close to it. A polar bear 20,000 feet up the Annapurna valley? That's a helluva walk from the Arctic........
 
Last edited:
IIRC, polar bears can swim hundreds of miles, so hiking up a mountain doesn't seem like much of a stretch. Heard about this on BBC this morning. Interesting.
 
Come on, get real. There is no way a population of polar bears has made it thousands of miles across Asia, then climbed into the mountains.....and nobody noticed.
 
MikeG said:
We're not talking modern polar bears and brown bears hybridising, if the papers have it correct. This is an old hybrid. But where's your excitement? Even if this is a mundane hybrid of two common species, it is uncatalogued, and one of the species is not known in the Himalayas, or even close to it. A polar bear 20,000 feet up the Annapurna valley? That's a helluva walk from the Arctic........
Click to expand...

Multiple hybrids do not make a species.

I am fascinated by the marginal bears--not for the least reason that they illustrate the inescapably arbitrary and contingent nature of the concept of "species").

OTH, this is not an "uncatalogued" new animal, but a known and demonstrated effect of habitat overlap (look up gull "ring species").

OTGH, the articles you cite do a good job of implying that "half polar bear" implies half ursine/half primate "hybrids", when the reality is that hybrid bear hair does not in any way "prove yeti". Hybrid bear hair, no matter how old, proves...

...that Ursus maritimus and Ursus arctos have been observed to produce hybrid offspring, in captivity and in the wild.
 
But they -assuming Sykes' data and their interpretation are correct- are not supposed to be polar bears. A subspecies of brown bears, not polar bears. Or an intermediate form, perhaps something which could bring brown and polar bears to be seen as ring species.

This put, since bears are not exactly unheard in Asia, a different species not being previously noticed by locals is not something that hard to imagine. It will basically depend on how far the "new" species will be, in terms of appearance, from the other ones. Color, size, etc. "Weird bear", may have been what countless hunters thought after killing or seeing one, completely forgetting about it some time later.

ETA: DAMN! Ninjaed by a slowvehicle.
 
Last edited:
MikeG said:
Come on, get real. There is no way a population of polar bears has made it thousands of miles across Asia, then climbed into the mountains.....and nobody noticed.
Click to expand...

1. You are assuming the hybrid bear hair was carried to the mountain by a bear--not a hiker wearing bearskin clothing.

2. You are assuming the "track" was made by a hybrid bear, not a hiker.

3. How is it less likely that an undiscovered population of bears made it to the himalayas without being noticed than an undiscovered populatons of an unknown mammal lives in the himalayas without being seen ( no bones, no tracks, no young, no middens,no scat...). The absence of any indication of either animal in the area suggests the bearskin jacket is more likely...
 
MikeG said:
Come on, get real. There is no way a population of polar bears has made it thousands of miles across Asia, then climbed into the mountains.....and nobody noticed.
Click to expand...

They did not have to climb. Noah dropped them off.
 
Slowvehicle said:
1. You are assuming the hybrid bear hair was carried to the mountain by a bear--not a hiker wearing bearskin clothing.

2. You are assuming the "track" was made by a hybrid bear, not a hiker.

3. How is it less likely that an undiscovered population of bears made it to the himalayas without being noticed than an undiscovered populatons of an unknown mammal lives in the himalayas without being seen ( no bones, no tracks, no young, no middens,no scat...). The absence of any indication of either animal in the area suggests the bearskin jacket is more likely...
Click to expand...

I am not assuming anything. I am reporting what Sykes is saying. But:

1: One of the samples was apparently from a "mummified" complete animal, shot 40 years ago by a local hunter. This is nothing to do with a single hair.

2: What track?

3: See 1/. And maybe take the trouble to read some of the links I posted, then I wouldn't have to be simply repeating what is on clear view for anyone to read.
 
Slowvehicle said:
OTGH, the articles you cite do a good job of implying that "half polar bear" implies half ursine/half primate "hybrids", when the reality is that hybrid bear hair does not in any way "prove yeti". Hybrid bear hair, no matter how old, proves...
Click to expand...

No, they do no such thing. There is no mention of anything half primate, nor is that implied.
 
I don't see where the results suggests that there is a *new* bear reflected in the hairs Sykes analyzed. This sounds to me like we just had little idea of the genetic diversity that might be present in bears of the region. I also find it confusing that Sykes is claiming a 100% match to the ancient polar bear material. How can an identical twin of a 120,000 year old polar bear be a hybrid brown bear from Bhutan? I'm assuming we'll find out for sure once the paper is published.
 
Resume said:
They did not have to climb. Noah dropped them off.
Click to expand...
Don't be silly.

I propose giant dragonflies nesting at the mountain rooftops.

They grab the bears, suck their blood, store the blood on the wings and drop the dry bodies.
 
The Shrike said:
I don't see where the results suggests that there is a *new* bear reflected in the hairs Sykes analyzed. This sounds to me like we just had little idea of the genetic diversity that might be present in bears of the region. I also find it confusing that Sykes is claiming a 100% match to the ancient polar bear material. How can an identical twin of a 120,000 year old polar bear be a hybrid brown bear from Bhutan? I'm assuming we'll find out for sure once the paper is published.
Click to expand...

Well, I also found the 100% coincidence as odd. While reading it I supposed it was a dumbed-down explanation or some SNAFU on article writing. Time will tell.
 
MikeG said:
I am not assuming anything. I am reporting what Sykes is saying. But:

1: One of the samples was apparently from a "mummified" complete animal, shot 40 years ago by a local hunter. This is nothing to do with a single hair.

2: What track?

3: See 1/. And maybe take the trouble to read some of the links I posted, then I wouldn't have to be simply repeating what is on clear view for anyone to read.
Click to expand...

Where is the mummy now? Did Sykes see it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom